No More Virtuals?

January 8, 2006

I was looking through the new cache listing guidelines and found that virtuals are no longer allowed??? These are the only caches that are allowed in National Parks and are the caches that are suggested for our (NC) State Parks.

So what gives??? What is our other option for these locations?

3.9k · January 8, 2006

...

So what gives??? What is our other option for these locations?

www.Waymarking.com

January 8, 2006

www.Waymarking.com

Are you kidding me??? Gees, have we gone a little strict with Geocaching???

3.9k · January 8, 2006

www.Waymarking.com

Are you kidding me??? Gees, have we gone a little strict with Geocaching???

I'm not following. Existing virtuals are staying, just no new ones. Waymarking is a great place to share "special places" that you can't really put a geocache at.

Also, if you like statues, then they have catagories for statues. If you like eheadstones, they have a catagory for that also. Heck, they even have a catagory for McDonald's.

January 8, 2006

Yeah, just seems like developing a separate community wasn't the best idea for everything it took away from Geocaching. I can see the locationless caches going into a different community but a virtual is different. I'm assuming that the webcams went over there as well??? These caches have a defined location and defined requirements and should be treated as caches, IMO.

3k · January 8, 2006

Gees, have we gone a little strict with Geocaching???

Nope.

Shifting the concept of virtual caches to a different place makes sense for a number of reasons, and should make life much easier for the GC.com reviewers.

With respect to areas where physical cache placements aren't allowed (like National Parks), I personally think the introduction of Waymarking will create some great opportunities which didn't exist before. Waymarking should allow the identification of a much larger number of interesting locations within these restricted areas than ever would have been practical in the old model.

2.2k · January 8, 2006

As Moose Mob said, virtuals are still listed on the site, however new ones are not accepted. For the last year or more, very few virtuals were listed anyway, so Waymarking.com fills that gap. Locationless caches, on the other hand, were archived around January 1. Waymarking fills that gap as well.

Take some time to explore the Waymarking site and get a true feel for it before you disregard it. It's been said to take off your Geocaching hat for a moment and not think about it in terms of geocaching--it is entirely different! There are also categories to help you better find the places you like to visit, whether it be fountains, historic memorials, and more. Geocaching.com is going back to what it was about at the beginning, a box in the woods (or under a lamp post, whatever floats your boat). Waymarking is about the cool places you may find interesting, or not. Much like with Geocaching you can choose to ignore the things you don't like, in this case an entire category.

Feel free to browse the Waymarking forums. You can get to them by scrolling all the way down to the bottom of the Geocaching forums. A lot of your questions can be answered there.

Enjoy!

2.1k · January 8, 2006

I like the new system. Thanks gc.com!

8k · January 8, 2006

Are you kidding me??? Gees, have we gone a little strict with Geocaching???

Yes. There is a group of "purist" or "puritans" or whatever you want to call them. They tell us that caches that don't have containers and logs aren't caches and therefore don't belong on GC.com. It is only a matter of time before log-only micros are banned too since caches should have something to trade in them as well. Some purist believe that the addition of virtuals is what lead to the ban on caches in the National Parks and other areas. Once land managers knew of this alternative, they could say only virtuals are allowed. Many of the purist believe that by no longer listing virtuals a better argument can be made to land managers to allow physical caches.

In spite of the fact that I believe virtuals and webcams are caches (but almost all locationless were not, in my mind, caches), Waymarking may be a better home for them. If you have an interesting location to share, it should be easier to find a Waymarking category to get it listed in than it was to convince a reviewer to accept it as a virtual. Waymarking still has problems for those who used virtuals as a fun way to visit interesting places while on a trip or vacation. So far there isn't a good way to sort out the waymarks that will make you go "Wow, that was interesting" from mundane waymarks or ones that might only be interesting to a small group of people. In the Waymarking forums are several threads where discussion is ongoing on how to make Waymarking better for those looking for a replacement for virtual caches.

The "virtuals are caches" group has lost the debate with the puritans (except for keeping existing virtuals grandfathers - the puritans wanted to archive these too). But virtuals can have a home at Waymarking.com, if those who like to visit interesting places will participate and let TPTB know how Waymarking can be improved to support this use.

January 8, 2006

My concern is that if I'm going to a particular area for some caching I'm now missing anything that is location specific. If there is a virtual that is now located at Waymarking.com I won't see it. I now have to do a query on both databases and keep track of two systems and two communities. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It seems the split was made at the wrong junction. The split, as I understand it, was made at whether a cache is physically located at the waypoint. IMO, it should have been split at whether or not there was a defined location. You won't hear me argue about the locationless caches. They were fun but weren't really caches because there was no defined location. Virtuals have locations.

Are the webcams over at Waymarking now, too?

6.5k · January 8, 2006

Are the webcams over at Waymarking now, too?

Yes, basically new caches that have no container (except events) are deferred to Waymarking. (virtuals, webcams, earthcache)

January 8, 2006

Some purist believe that the addition of virtuals is what lead to the ban on caches in the National Parks and other areas. Once land managers knew of this alternative, they could say only virtuals are allowed. Many of the purist believe that by no longer listing virtuals a better argument can be made to land managers to allow physical caches.

I don't follow how moving the virtual caches to another web site removes the option from the minds of land managers.

8.9k · January 9, 2006

Then:

Cacher: Hello Mr. Landmanager. I'd like to place a Geocache in your park.

Land Manager: What's Geocaching

Cacher: (insert explanation). Check out the site at Geocaching.com

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): I'm not really too keen on boxes out this the woods, but I read up on these "virtual caches." You can place one of those. (end of conversation)

Now:

Cacher: Hello Mr. Landmanager. I'd like to place a Geocache in your park.

Land Manager: What's Geocaching

Cacher: (insert explanation). Check out the site at Geocaching.com

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): I'm not really too keen on boxes out this the woods, but I read up on these "virtual caches." You can place one of those.

Cacher: Oh - those have all been converted to Waymarks, which is now a completely different game. These virtual spots are now listed as a search engine on a completely different website. I was talking about Geocaches being listed on Geocaching.com.

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): How many people do you think will come visit it? (and the conversation continues...

1.5k · January 9, 2006

Then:

Cacher: Hello Mr. Landmanager. I'd like to place a Geocache in your park.

Land Manager: What's Geocaching

Cacher: (insert explanation). Check out the site at Geocaching.com

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): I'm not really too keen on boxes out this the woods, but I read up on these "virtual caches." You can place one of those. (end of conversation)

Now:

Cacher: Hello Mr. Landmanager. I'd like to place a Geocache in your park.

Land Manager: What's Geocaching

Cacher: (insert explanation). Check out the site at Geocaching.com

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): I'm not really too keen on boxes out this the woods, but I read up on these "virtual caches." You can place one of those.

Cacher: Oh - those have all been converted to Waymarks, which is now a completely different game. These virtual spots are now listed as a search engine on a completely different website. I was talking about Geocaches being listed on Geocaching.com.

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): How many people do you think will come visit it? (and the conversation continues...

I understand this in theory, but I don't believe it's ultimately going to help with the landmanager conversation (there are plenty of other reasons to move the locationless and virtuals).

I see this conversation going more like:

Cacher: Oh - those have all been converted to Waymarks, which is now a completely different game. These virtual spots are now listed as a search engine on a completely different website. I was talking about Geocaches being listed on Geocaching.com.

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): oh, well, then we'll allow those waymark things, but not boxes in our woods. Since you're familar with both sites and they're the same company, you can just do that.

January 9, 2006

I see this conversation going more like:
Cacher: Oh - those have all been converted to Waymarks, which is now a completely different game. These virtual spots are now listed as a search engine on a completely different website. I was talking about Geocaches being listed on Geocaching.com.

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): oh, well, then we'll allow those waymark things, but not boxes in our woods. Since you're familar with both sites and they're the same company, you can just do that.

Well, I for one didn't, nor do I , want another game to play. What has happened has crippled Geocaching. The management has ultimately divided the users and when you divide the people that is when you start the fall.

Maybe we should start a petition to bring the virtuals and webcams back to Geocaching. Maybe we should call Groundspeak and voice our opinions.

January 9, 2006

I see this conversation going more like:
Cacher: Oh - those have all been converted to Waymarks, which is now a completely different game. These virtual spots are now listed as a search engine on a completely different website. I was talking about Geocaches being listed on Geocaching.com.

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): oh, well, then we'll allow those waymark things, but not boxes in our woods. Since you're familar with both sites and they're the same company, you can just do that.

Well, I for one didn't, nor do I , want another game to play. What has happened has crippled Geocaching. The management has ultimately divided the users and when you divide the people that is when you start the fall.

Maybe we should start a petition to bring the virtuals and webcams back to Geocaching. Maybe we should call Groundspeak and voice our opinions.

LOL go for it. Pretty sure Groundspeak is privately owned and operated and does what THEY want to do, not what anyone else wants them too.

1.7k · January 9, 2006

Out of curiosity, how many virtuals are there? I am sure they compose a very small percentage of caches. Since they made up such a small part of geocaching.com, I see it as no big loss that new virtuals will only be listed on Waymarking.com. The minority bemoaning the listing of new virtuals on Waymarking is very vocal. Geocaching is more about finding something (like a container with a log), Waymarking is more about visiting something (a vista, restaurant, statue, structure, etc.). With virtuals, you aren't really "finding" something, but visiting.

January 9, 2006

Well, I for one didn't, nor do I , want another game to play. What has happened has crippled Geocaching. The management has ultimately divided the users and when you divide the people that is when you start the fall.

Maybe we should start a petition to bring the virtuals and webcams back to Geocaching. Maybe we should call Groundspeak and voice our opinions.

Sorry, your argument that Waymarking has somehow "crippled" geocaching just doesn't hold much water. The only possible way that makes sense is if it were the mass appeal of virtuals that drew people to gc.com, where they then discovered that they could also search for boxes in the woods (and film canisters under lampposts). If that had been the basis for interest in gc.com, then obviously taking the virtuals away would dry up the source of new cachers and perhaps cause a few others to leave.

I think you'll find that the situation is the exact opposite. Most people have learned about geocaching as a sport where you go find something that's hidden, and then along the way they discovered there was also an aspect of the sport that involved finding things that weren't hidden -- i.e., virtuals.

Sure, if you like both physical and virtual caches, it's great to have one-stop shopping. But if you want really great physical caches and really great virtuals, why not use separate resources that provide really great support for their own respective listings?

I shop at a big grocery story that has a very wide selection of groceries. They also have a few auto supplies, a few hardware selections, a few racks of paperback books and magazines, some basic clothing, and so on. When I buy groceries, if I also happen to need a quart of oil and a few light bulbs, I'll pick them up there. But if I want to buy a good heavy-duty hammer, I'll go to the hardware store, even though the grocery store might have a hammer or two. If I need some nice casual shirts to wear to the office, I'll go to a clothing store (or most likely buy them online, actually). If I'm looking for books about sailing, I'll go to a bookstore. And I think that's exactly as it should be -- that's the model that works the best, gives me the best selection and the highest quality of goods at each store.

Waymarking is new and different. New things are almost always a little intimidating. I've visited Waymarking.com, and own a couple waymarks there, but I'll admit I don't do much over there. For me, it's more a matter of not having enough categories yet that really interest me, and I'm also waiting for the whole matter to shake out as far as how new categories get created and who will own them. But I see a lot of potential there, and hope to be more active there before too long.

Give it a chance. Try it out, and give it some time to mature. It's definitely going through some growing pains, but I'm confident it will be a lot more seamless for you in the long run.

38.2k · January 9, 2006

Well, I for one didn't, nor do I , want another game to play.

You don't have to.

Maybe we should start a petition to bring the virtuals and webcams back to Geocaching. Maybe we should call Groundspeak and voice our opinions.

You're assuming that there will be a groundswell of support for your opinion.

In reality virtuals, except in extremely rare cases, haven't been approved here for almost three years, but people were still free to hunt them. So nothing's really changed, except that people who would like to get virtuals listed can easily do so now, on Waymarking.com.

They didn't have that option before. Its actually an improvement over the way things have been since early 2003.

9.4k · January 9, 2006

Geocaching is more about finding something (like a container with a log), Waymarking is more about visiting something (a vista, restaurant, statue, structure, etc.). With virtuals, you aren't really "finding" something, but visiting.

Excellent description. I didn't get into geocaching to visit things, I got into it to find things.

1.7k · January 9, 2006

They didn't have that option before. Its actually an improvement over the way things have been since early 2003.

And just where were you when the explosion took place. <_<

The two are not mutually exclusive. I actually have a cache that at its first stage is a Waymark--and out of place gravesite. And in my travels the other day, I found another, a graveyard located in a suburban back yard in Paramus. I think I own a Waymark Category. Give it a chance, it may turn into something, but it sure is not going to take anything away from the game of search and find.

January 9, 2006

Well, I for one didn't, nor do I , want another game to play.

You don't have to.

Maybe we should start a petition to bring the virtuals and webcams back to Geocaching. Maybe we should call Groundspeak and voice our opinions.

You're assuming that there will be a groundswell of support for your opinion.

In reality virtuals, except in extremely rare cases, haven't been approved here for almost three years, but people were still free to hunt them. So nothing's really changed, except that people who would like to get virtuals listed can easily do so now, on Waymarking.com.

Well, at least in theory. At least until TBTP figure out how to handle new categories and the approval of new submissions.

January 9, 2006

Quite frankly my feeling that taking virtuals out of GC is a MISTAKE. With a virtual you do actually find something!!! And you can claim it.... Just like a cache with a container and swag..... A LOCATIONLESS CACHE should have never seen the light of day the person who though it up should have been buried in a locationaless cache and never be to be found..... As for Micros, I'm not sure of.... Just signing apiece of paper is not much reward... Bring Virtuals back in to CG.Com....

Separating cache types is now going to start territorial wars..... And I really don't see how approving a virtual is any different that container cache.... But how does one approve a locationally cache... After all the whole game is bases of "FINDING a LOCATION"....

Being the owner of VIRTUAL cache and loving good container caches has now split my time, effort and dedication to sport right down the middle..... Another conundrum in life...

Dale

Edited January 9, 2006 by Dale_Lynn

24.7k · January 9, 2006

Then:

Cacher: Hello Mr. Landmanager. I'd like to place a Geocache in your park.

Land Manager: What's Geocaching

Cacher: (insert explanation). Check out the site at Geocaching.com

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): I'm not really too keen on boxes out this the woods, but I read up on these "virtual caches." You can place one of those. (end of conversation)

Now:

Cacher: Hello Mr. Landmanager. I'd like to place a Geocache in your park.

Land Manager: What's Geocaching

Cacher: (insert explanation). Check out the site at Geocaching.com

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): I'm not really too keen on boxes out this the woods, but I read up on these "virtual caches." You can place one of those.

Cacher: Oh - those have all been converted to Waymarks, which is now a completely different game. These virtual spots are now listed as a search engine on a completely different website. I was talking about Geocaches being listed on Geocaching.com.

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): How many people do you think will come visit it? (and the conversation continues...

It won't take long before Waymark is used exactly like you show virtuals.

24.7k · January 9, 2006

Quite frankly my feeling that taking virtuals out of GC is a MISTAKE. ...

Time will tell. It's different enough it will lose some geocachers, and gain some "waymarkers". How many it looses over how many it gains will be the telling sign.

I gave it a spin, looked up a locationless and still have not gotten around to logging it. One of these days I will just to kick the tires.

I'm glad they grandfathers virtuals. I would not re-list my virtual on Waymarking. The locationless that I adopted out have died. One makes no sence on Waymarking because it was essentially a breeder locationless and Waymarking is another ball of wax. Waymarking is not exactly what it replaced. It is different.

January 9, 2006

Then:
Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): I'm not really too keen on boxes out this the woods, but I read up on these "virtual caches." You can place one of those. (end of conversation)

Now:

Land Manager (after diligently searching the site): How many people do you think will come visit it? (and the conversation continues...

If land managers don't want you leaving something behind on the property they manage, I don't think they will really care what the alternative is called -- Virtual Geocache or Waymark -- functionally, it's the same thing.

January 9, 2006

I think Waymarking is great for the game that it is. As Renegade Knight said, it's fairly much different than geocaching.

6.5k · January 9, 2006

I was looking through the new cache listing guidelines and found that virtuals are no longer allowed??? These are the only caches that are allowed in National Parks and are the caches that are suggested for our (NC) State Parks.

So what gives??? What is our other option for these locations?

Not sure where you got that idea from. <_< It isn't suggested at the NC Geocachers Organization website, I've never had a park ranger tell me they prefer them, and I personally have never recommended it to anyone.

I enjoy the occasionaly virt find, but it isn't why I participate in this sport. With the exception of a stroll down the Mall in DC I have never planned a day of hunting virts, but will find them if they are in my path of finding traditional caches. IMO webcams should have never been allowed in the first place.

I see this seperation as more of a return to the roots of geocaching than anything else, and the site owners felt the best way to do so was create another more functional website to manage those other types of things you can do and find with a GPS.

Edited January 9, 2006 by wimseyguy

January 9, 2006

Being the owner of VIRTUAL cache and loving good container caches has now split my time, effort and dedication to sport right down the middle..... Another conundrum in life...

How so? <_<

When virtuals were on gc.com, you spent part of your time on your virtuals, and part of your time on your physical caches.

Now you spend part of your time on waymarks, and part of your time on physical caches -- the only difference is that it's on two websites instead of one.

But either way, you were splitting your time before, and you're still splitting your time.

January 9, 2006

A LOCATIONLESS CACHE should have never seen the light of day the person who though it up should have been buried in a locationaless cache and never be to be found

Right next to the guy that thought up virtuals. The ONE virtual I have done left me feeling quite empty upon completion. I mean, I knew exactly what I was looking for before I even left the office; only had to complete the 'search'-if you can call it that-to find some information on a plate on the structure. Yeah, virtuals are good for taking you to a neat place, but they're missing that thrill of the hunt factor as you try to figure out where the cache might be. Who gives a hang if it's a micro or an ammo can, it's seeing how someone managed to hide something in plain view, but completely out of sight that I enjoy. To me, a fundamental part of geocaching is finding something someone else HID, not something someone else walked past and marked the coords for. Heck, just look at the definition of the word cache--it's a hidden stash of something or other. Not present at virtuals.

Waymarking is a good solution, and while it may take a bit to really catch on, I think it's a step in the right direction. Now, I only await the day when the virtual crowd gets used to it/accepts it and QUITS WHINING.

January 9, 2006

Quite frankly my feeling that taking virtuals out of GC is a MISTAKE. With a virtual you do actually find something!!! And you can claim it.... Just like a cache with a container and swag..... A LOCATIONLESS CACHE should have never seen the light of day the person who though it up should have been buried in a locationaless cache and never be to be found.....

I agree with those statements. The problem was locationless and much less calling them that. They were multiple location not locationless and had very little to do with finding a specific spot. The game/sport isn't just about finding a plastic container its about finding a specific spot that may have a container or something else. The original cache was placed to see if people could use a GPS to find the spot not strictly to find the container.

Yeah, virtuals are good for taking you to a neat place, but they're missing that thrill of the hunt factor as you try to figure out where the cache might be.

dkwolf, can't agree with you on that as a differentiater between virtuals and other caches. If I head out the door to do a micro at a Walmart I know what I'm looking for. There are lame traditionals, lame multis, and lame micros that have absolutely no thrill of the hunt. If that was the only criteria we'd get rid of caching altogether.

There are lame virtuals but there are also very good virtuals. The biggest problem with virtuals is that many of them were actually locationaless. That's a definition problem not a category problem. The definition should have specified a specific spot that is unique and cannot be seen elsewhere. Niagara Falls can be seen from hundreds of spotsand is a locationaless but Niagara Falls Virtual cache (GCABA1) is a very specific spot and a darn good hunt. Even standing at the coordinates you have to figure out where it is.

It seems that what's been forgotten is that nobody has to do all types. You don't like micros in Walmart parking lots then don't do them, don't like virtuals don't do them, don't like multis don't do them. But because some people don't like some caches is not the reason to get rid of a category.

JDandDD

2.5k · January 9, 2006

I was looking through the new cache listing guidelines and found that virtuals are no longer allowed??? These are the only caches that are allowed in National Parks and are the caches that are suggested for our (NC) State Parks.

So what gives??? What is our other option for these locations?

I've been caching for a couple years and have never been alowed to place a virtual due to a block on their placement. Don't get your panties in a twist just because the wording's changed.

38.2k · January 9, 2006

Separating cache types is now going to start territorial wars

How? Now someone can place a cache at a site and also make it a waymark if they like. You could't put a real cache next to a virtual before, but you can do that now

.. After all the whole game is bases of "FINDING a LOCATION"....

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES. Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

If its all about the hunt, there is no reason Waymarking can't replace virtuals and locationless caches on this site. Whether they are listed here, or on Waymarking.com the point is still to use your GPS to seek out places.

I think in the end, its about the smileys. You can't add to your smiley count by finding a waymark and I think that's the rub with most people.

10.1k · January 10, 2006

Out of curiosity, how many virtuals are there? I am sure they compose a very small percentage of caches. Since they made up such a small part of geocaching.com, I see it as no big loss that new virtuals will only be listed on Waymarking.com. The minority bemoaning the listing of new virtuals on Waymarking is very vocal. Geocaching is more about finding something (like a container with a log), Waymarking is more about visiting something (a vista, restaurant, statue, structure, etc.). With virtuals, you aren't really "finding" something, but visiting.

Semantic problem here. What is the difference between 'finding' and 'visiting'? Either require coordinates in the GPS to find, or visit.

The answer to the question being asked is that Geocaching.com is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy. If TPTB choose to go back to the roots, which seems to be finding a cache with a signable log, then, that is their prerogative.

Myself, for one, I have not been impressed with most of the Virtual caches that I've found. Some are great, most are boring. Of course, the same can be said of guardrail micros. :huh:

I have found many of the Locationless Caches to be far more challenging and interesting than many of the Virtuals. The rules have been reset to require a set of coordinates to find a cache. TPTB have that prerogative. I don't have a vote here.

Ya puts down your nickel, and takes your chances, but you still have to play by the rules. Dealer's option as to whether aces are high or low, or whether there are any wildcards.

22k · January 10, 2006

I hate change, especially when it is something I like or even just understand.

If waypointing pans out, then maybe I'll like it, But they better not change anything once I get into it.

and yes I am serious,...pretty much.

January 10, 2006

I think in the end, its about the smileys. You can't add to your smiley count by finding a waymark and I think that's the rub with most people.

That sound is the hammer hitting the proverbial nail on the head.

January 10, 2006

I was looking through the new cache listing guidelines and found that virtuals are no longer allowed??? These are the only caches that are allowed in National Parks and are the caches that are suggested for our (NC) State Parks.

So what gives??? What is our other option for these locations?

Not sure where you got that idea from. It isn't suggested at the NC Geocachers Organization website, I've never had a park ranger tell me they prefer them, and I personally have never recommended it to anyone.

I enjoy the occasionaly virt find, but it isn't why I participate in this sport. With the exception of a stroll down the Mall in DC I have never planned a day of hunting virts, but will find them if they are in my path of finding traditional caches. IMO webcams should have never been allowed in the first place.

I see this seperation as more of a return to the roots of geocaching than anything else, and the site owners felt the best way to do so was create another more functional website to manage those other types of things you can do and find with a GPS.

You must not have looked very hard...

The North Carolina State Park Geocaching Policy clearly states "Virtual caches should be encouraged in lieu of physical caches." and that they are free whereas with a physical cache you have to pay for a special use permit and the cache can only be in the park no longer than three months.

January 10, 2006

Being the owner of VIRTUAL cache and loving good container caches has now split my time, effort and dedication to sport right down the middle..... Another conundrum in life...

How so?

When virtuals were on gc.com, you spent part of your time on your virtuals, and part of your time on your physical caches.

Now you spend part of your time on waymarks, and part of your time on physical caches -- the only difference is that it's on two websites instead of one.

But either way, you were splitting your time before, and you're still splitting your time.

I think you analogy is flawed... Virtuals (grandfathered) and swag caches ARE on same site....

I have no intentions of going to THE WAYMAKING web site.... To me waymaking is like a multipoint scavenger hunt or a poker run ( automotive event) where you need to hit multiple points to achieve success....

I prefer going to one point and making total discovery at that one point....

So I am splitting nothing....

Dale

Edited January 10, 2006 by Dale_Lynn

6.5k · January 10, 2006

I was looking through the new cache listing guidelines and found that virtuals are no longer allowed??? These are the only caches that are allowed in National Parks and are the caches that are suggested for our (NC) State Parks.

So what gives??? What is our other option for these locations?

Not sure where you got that idea from. It isn't suggested at the NC Geocachers Organization website, I've never had a park ranger tell me they prefer them, and I personally have never recommended it to anyone.

I enjoy the occasionaly virt find, but it isn't why I participate in this sport. With the exception of a stroll down the Mall in DC I have never planned a day of hunting virts, but will find them if they are in my path of finding traditional caches. IMO webcams should have never been allowed in the first place.

I see this seperation as more of a return to the roots of geocaching than anything else, and the site owners felt the best way to do so was create another more functional website to manage those other types of things you can do and find with a GPS.

You must not have looked very hard...

The North Carolina State Park Geocaching Policy clearly states "Virtual caches should be encouraged in lieu of physical caches." and that they are free whereas with a physical cache you have to pay for a special use permit and the cache can only be in the park no longer than three months.

You left out the disclaimer at the NCGO website. No one has been able to confirm with the NC State Parks that this is still their position. If you read Markwell's post above, perhaps this is part of the reason for shutting them down? I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw a new virt published in NC, and it certainly was not hidden in a State Park.

This policy was on the State of North Carolina website at one time but can no longer be found there. Nevertheless, we believe that at least some State Park officials still use this as the official policy and we are presenting it here as such.

Edited January 10, 2006 by wimseyguy

January 10, 2006

I was looking through the new cache listing guidelines and found that virtuals are no longer allowed??? These are the only caches that are allowed in National Parks and are the caches that are suggested for our (NC) State Parks.

So what gives??? What is our other option for these locations?

Not sure where you got that idea from. It isn't suggested at the NC Geocachers Organization website, I've never had a park ranger tell me they prefer them, and I personally have never recommended it to anyone.

I enjoy the occasionaly virt find, but it isn't why I participate in this sport. With the exception of a stroll down the Mall in DC I have never planned a day of hunting virts, but will find them if they are in my path of finding traditional caches. IMO webcams should have never been allowed in the first place.

I see this seperation as more of a return to the roots of geocaching than anything else, and the site owners felt the best way to do so was create another more functional website to manage those other types of things you can do and find with a GPS.

You must not have looked very hard...

The North Carolina State Park Geocaching Policy clearly states "Virtual caches should be encouraged in lieu of physical caches." and that they are free whereas with a physical cache you have to pay for a special use permit and the cache can only be in the park no longer than three months.

You left out the disclaimer at the NCGO website. No one has been able to confirm with the NC State Parks that this is still their position.

This policy was on the State of North Carolina website at one time but can no longer be found there. Nevertheless, we believe that at least some State Park officials still use this as the official policy and we are presenting it here as such.

The ranger I spoke with felt like it was very much still in effect. He actually had a copy of it in his notebook he kept in his office. The NCGO website said that it wasn't on the DENR website anymore.

9.4k · January 10, 2006

Being the owner of VIRTUAL cache and loving good container caches has now split my time, effort and dedication to sport right down the middle..... Another conundrum in life...

How so?

When virtuals were on gc.com, you spent part of your time on your virtuals, and part of your time on your physical caches.

Now you spend part of your time on waymarks, and part of your time on physical caches -- the only difference is that it's on two websites instead of one.

But either way, you were splitting your time before, and you're still splitting your time.

I think you analogy is flawed... Virtuals (grandfathered) and swag caches ARE on same site....

I have no intentions of going to THE WAYMAKING web site.... To me waymaking is like a multipoint scavenger hunt or a poker run ( automotive event) where you need to hit multiple points to achieve success....

I prefer going to one point and making total discovery at that one point....

So I am splitting nothing....

Dale

Just so you know, it's called Waymarking (not waymaking, waypointing, or any of the other misspellings I've seen in this thread.

38.2k · January 10, 2006

I have no intentions of going to THE WAYMAKING web site.... To me waymaking is like a multipoint scavenger hunt or a poker run ( automotive event) where you need to hit multiple points to achieve success....

You seem to have a misconception about Waymarking. Waymarking is simply virtual and locationless caches under another name. Any one who enjoys locationless and virtual caches should enjoy Waymarking - unleess its all about the smileys.

January 10, 2006

i think taking away virtuals is stupid we arnt even really touchin stuff ya now

6.8k · January 10, 2006

If its all about the hunt, there is no reason Waymarking can't replace virtuals and locationless caches on this site.

I do not agree with your statement as there are many types of virtual caches that do not fit into the Waymarking concept, for example virtuals with multiple stages or with an integrated puzzle type. There are sites where such caches can be listed, but Waymarking is not among them.

The majority of virtual caches I found interesting are not of the simple single stage type where you typically know beforehand what you are going to visit.

Cezanne

8k · January 10, 2006

If its all about the hunt, there is no reason Waymarking can't replace virtuals and locationless caches on this site.

I do not agree with your statement as there are many types of virtual caches that do not fit into the Waymarking concept, for example virtuals with multiple stages or with an integrated puzzle type. There are sites where such caches can be listed, but Waymarking is not among them.

The majority of virtual caches I found interesting are not of the simple single stage type where you typically know beforehand what you are going to visit.

Cezanne

Be creative people. Unfortunately, other than the addition of the coordinate play category we haven't seen many examples of creative categories. I previously suggested a Wow!! category. TPTB didn't think much of it because it has the same subjective Wow requirement as virtuals. However, I think that a "Suprise" category may be acceptable - here's a waymark and I want you to be suprised by what you find so I'm not going to tell you what it is. No guarantees that you'll be wowed, just suprised. Similiarly a "Guided Tour" category may allow for the multi-stage type virtual. And perhaps a "Puzzle" category where the posted coordinates are bogus and you have to figure where the waymark is.

I would also like to see a change to Waymarking where a waymark can have a optional verification requirement - usually a question that can only be answered by finding something at the waymark. You could visit the waymark without meeting the verification requirements, but those who want could get credit for finding the waymark by fulfilling the requirement.

January 10, 2006

I just can't wait until they get an effictiant way for creating catagories. I really have some good ideas, but I'm not gonna propose them yet because I'm getting a premium membership very soon, and I want to be able to run them. Other than that I really like Waymarking and I like it's creativity.

January 11, 2006

i think taking away virtuals is stupid we arnt even really touchin stuff ya now

IF you want to, you can actually walk and hug my virtual or have your photo taken with your arm around if you want to ...

And sorry for the blooper on the "wayfaring" name, as you can guess I'm not impressed....

Dale

January 11, 2006

I have no intentions of going to THE WAYMAKING web site.... To me waymaking is like a multipoint scavenger hunt or a poker run ( automotive event) where you need to hit multiple points to achieve success....

You seem to have a misconception about Waymarking. Waymarking is simply virtual and locationless caches under another name. Any one who enjoys locationless and virtual caches should enjoy Waymarking - unleess its all about the smileys.

Now I have to make MORE time and more space in my life to track two different internet sites....... It just complicates thing....

I still say concept is flawed....

Dale

3.8k · January 11, 2006

I'm glad to see them on another site.

1.) Don't need to filter them from my PQ's. If I feel like finding a cache I'll look on gc.com. If I'm looking for a place I'll look on Waymarking.com

2.) Real tough to say "no more caches" in national parks since there were no "caches" in there anyway. There were cool places to go, but no caches. There are still cool places to go, just happens to be on another site.

3.) Easier to find what I want should I decide to look for something. The categories make it real easy to find what I'm looking for.

Can't make everyone happy, I guess.

January 11, 2006

I might be wrong, but I don't think that virtual legs of multi-caches that end in an actual cache container are banned. That would mean that, in a way, virtuals could still be done at gc.com. They just have to ultimately end in a physical container somwhere or another.

No More Virtuals?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment